Search This Blog

Sec.82 of A.P.H.R.I&En. Act , Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Lease of Agricultural Lands Rules, 2003 - Public auction sale of temple lands - Claim by lease - Under sec. 82 (2) every landless poor person has to make an application before commissioner else from 28th May 1987 , all leases deemed to be cancelled - ever after the framing of rule in 2003 no application was made - the writ petitioners can not be considered as landless poor for claiming exemption either under sec.82(2) or under the rule 3(1) - Writ petitions are dismissed = Duvvur Niranjan Reddy, S/o Late Duvvur Adinarayana Reddy, Nellore...... Petitioner The Executive Officer, Sri Kailaslanatha Swamy Temple, Brahmadevam Village, Muthukur Mandal, Nellore District and another....RESPONDENTS = published in judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/filename=10482

Sec.82 of A.P.H.R.I&En. Act , Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Lease of Agricultural Lands Rules, 2003 - Public auction sale of temple lands - Claim by lease - Under sec. 82 (2) every landless poor person has to make an application before commissioner else from 28th May 1987 , all leases deemed to be cancelled - ever after the framing of rule in 2003 no application was made - the writ petitioners can not be considered as landless poor for claiming exemption either under sec.82(2) or under the rule 3(1) - Writ petitions are dismissed = In the instant case, the petitioners in both the cases have been grantedleasehold rights over land of an extent of Ac.7-75 cents and Ac.6-38 centsrespectively. Even if these lands are construed to be dry lands, since, theirextent has exceeded five acres limit, both the petitioners cannot be construedas landless poor persons. When once the respective petitioners in both thecases cannot be construed as landless poor persons, the lease said to have beenheld by them stood terminated by virtue of the provisions contained under sub-section (1) of Section 82 of the Act. Thus, there is no subsisting lease infavour of the petitioners.=Sub-section (1) of Section 82 of the Act, whichreads as under:" Any lease of agricultural land belonging to or given or endowed for thepurpose of any institution or endowment subsisting on the date of commencement of this Act shall, notwithstanding anything in any other law for the time beingin force, held by a person who is not a landless poor person stands cancelled."So long as they are not held by a landless poor person, the purpose and intentof this Provision is to cancel all leases, which are subsisting as on the datewhen the provision has been brought into force, excepting such leases, which areheld by the landless poor persons. Sub-section (2) confers certain advantagesupon landless poor persons. It provided a landless poor person, who held landsfor not less than six years continuously, to have the right of first purchaseand also for a consideration of 75% of the prevailing market value of similarly-situated lands at the time of purchase and further the said consideration of 75%shall be paid in four equal installments in the manner prescribed. Further,such a sale can be affected by the Institution other than by public auction." For the purpose of this sub-section 'landless poor person' means a personwhose total extent of land held by him either as owner or as cultivating tenantor as both does not exceed 1.011715 hectares (two and half acres) of wet land or2.023430 hectares (five acres) of dry land and whose monthly income other thanfrom such lands does not exceed thousand rupees per mensum or twelve thousand rupees per annum. However, those of the tenants who own residential propertyexceeding two hundred square yards in Urban Area shall not be considered aslandless poor for the purpose of purchase of endowments properties."Andhra Pradesh framed the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Lease of AgriculturalLands Rules, 2003,exercising the power available to him under sub-section (1)of Section 82 read with Section 153 of the Act and got these Rules notifiedthrough G.O.Ms.No.379, Revenue (Endowments) Department, dated 11-03-2003. Rule 3(1) thereof makes it clear that immediately after the Rulescame into force, if any cultivating tenant claims to be a landless poor person,the Assistant Commissioner, having territorial jurisdiction, shall inquire intoand decide whether the cultivating tenant is a landless poor person or not, asdefined under Section 82 of the Act, after giving reasonable opportunity to thecultivating tenant as well as to the executive authority of the Institutionconcerned. Sub-rule (2) thereof makes it abundantly clear that if thecultivating tenant does not claim to be a landless poor person or if theAssistant Commissioner concerned determined that the cultivating tenant is not alandless poor person, the tenancy will be deemed to have been cancelled witheffect from 28th May 1987 and the cultivating tenant shall be regarded as atenant holding over thereafter.Thus, since, these Rules have been firstpublished in Andhra Pradesh Gazette dated 13-03-2003, the petitioners arerequired to make applications for recognition as landless poor personsimmediately thereafter. Since, the petitioners have not filed any applicationsseeking determination of their status as landless poor persons, the question ofapplication of the Rules itself in their case would not arise. Even otherwise,as already noticed supra, the petitioners, by virtue of the sweep of Section 82of the Act, cannot even be declared as landless poor persons. Hence, there isno way that the petitioners can insist that they shall be permitted to continueto carry on the agricultural operations of the lands belonging to the temple. Aright of seeking permission for any grant cannot lie contrary to therequirements of the Statute itself. I do not find any merit in both these writ petitions and therefore, theyare dismissed at the stage of admission, but however, without costs.

Writ Petition No. 11424 of 2010 is filed by one Duvvur Niranjan Reddy seeking awrit of mandamus for declaring the action of the 1st respondent, namely theExecutive Officer, Sri Kailasanatha Swamy Temple, Brahmadevam Village, Muthukur Mandal, Nellore District, in auctioning the petitioner's land to an extent ofAc.7-75 cents in Survey Nos. 203, 204 and 205 situate at Brahmadevam Village,Muthukur Mandal, Nellore District, scheduled to be held on 19-05-2010 at 10-00am or thereafter, as per the notice dated 05-05-2010, as illegal.Writ Petition No. 30936 of 2013 has been filed by one Sri B.Seenaiah, seeking a writ of mandamus for declaring the action of the 2ndrespondent, namely, Sri Kailasanatha Swamy Temple, represented by its Executive Officer, Brahmadevam Village, Muthukur Mandal, Nellore District, in auctioningthe petitioner's land to an extent of Ac.6-38 cents in Survey No.207 situate atBrahmadevam Village, Muthukur Mandal, Nellore District, pursuant to the noticedated 24-10-2013, by auctions to be held on06-11-2013 at 10-00 am or subsequently, as illegal.The petitioner in the first writ petition has claimed that land of an extent ofAc.7-75 cents situate in Survey Nos. 203, 204 and 205 situate at Brahmadevam Village belonging to Sri Kailasanatha Swamy Temple in the village was leased outto him as early as in the year 1995 and he has been cultivating the said land asa lessee by paying the Maktha to the 1st respondent temple every year. It wasclaimed by him that the lease has been extended from time to time, but however,the 1st respondent has issued notice on05-05-2010 proposing to grant the licence to cultivate the land in question byway of a public auction to be held on 19-05-2010. Hence, he instituted the saidwrit petition challenging the validity of the notice.So far as the petitionerin the second writ petition is concerned, it is his case that land of an extentof Ac.6-38 cents in Survey No. 207 situate at Brahmadevam Village belonging toSri Kailasanatha Swamy Temple has been leased out to his fore-fathers long back.They have been cultivating the said land from a very very long time and that hehas been paying the annual Maktha at Rs.59,000/- to the said Devasthanam and in spite of his prompt payment of Maktha, the Devasthanam has taken out a notification on 24-10-2013, proposing to grant licence for cultivating this veryland, by public auction, for a period of three years, commencing from 2013-2014and hence, this writ petition has been instituted.In both the cases, the respective petitioner set out that as per Section 82 ofthe Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act, 1987 (henceforth referred to as 'the Act'), the leases held by landless poorpersons are saved from cancellation and that the State Government has formulateda scheme through their G.O.Ms.No.379, Revenue (Endowments) Department, dated 11- 03-2003, indicating the procedure to be followed for the purpose of determiningthe status of a landless poor person. The case of the petitioners is thatwithout following the procedure, the respondents are proceeding further in thematter by proposing to conduct the necessary auctions.
It will be relevant to notice Sub-section (1) of Section 82 of the Act, whichreads as under:" Any lease of agricultural land belonging to or given or endowed for thepurpose of any institution or endowment subsisting on the date of commencement of this Act shall, notwithstanding anything in any other law for the time beingin force, held by a person who is not a landless poor person stands cancelled."

So long as they are not held by a landless poor person, the purpose and intentof this Provision is to cancel all leases, which are subsisting as on the datewhen the provision has been brought into force, excepting such leases, which areheld by the landless poor persons. Sub-section (2) confers certain advantagesupon landless poor persons. It provided a landless poor person, who held landsfor not less than six years continuously, to have the right of first purchaseand also for a consideration of 75% of the prevailing market value of similarly-situated lands at the time of purchase and further the said consideration of 75%shall be paid in four equal installments in the manner prescribed. Further,such a sale can be affected by the Institution other than by public auction.
Therefore, for availing benefits prescribed under Sub-section (2), the
basic requirement is that the lease of the land must be held by a landless poor
person, at least, for a continuous period of six years. The Proviso added to
Sub-section (2) also conferred a benefit on the landless poor person - lessee to
continue as a tenant in the land if he agrees to pay at least two-third of the
market rent, which was paid for similarly-placed lands, as lease amount. The
Explanation reads as under:" For the purpose of this sub-section 'landless poor person' means a personwhose total extent of land held by him either as owner or as cultivating tenantor as both does not exceed 1.011715 hectares (two and half acres) of wet land or2.023430 hectares (five acres) of dry land and whose monthly income other thanfrom such lands does not exceed thousand rupees per mensum or twelve thousand rupees per annum. However, those of the tenants who own residential propertyexceeding two hundred square yards in Urban Area shall not be considered aslandless poor for the purpose of purchase of endowments properties."

Thus, a 'landless poor person' is defined as a person, whose total extent of
land held by him either as owner or as cultivating tenant or as both does not
exceed an extent of two and half acres of wet land or five acres of dry land and
whose monthly income, other than from such land, does not exceed Rs.1,000/- per
mensum or Rs.12,000/- per annum. In other words, if the lease itself is granted
for wet land of two and half acres or dry land of five acres of extent, he
cannot be construed or considered as a landless poor person, even if he does not
own any land at all.In the instant case, the petitioners in both the cases have been grantedleasehold rights over land of an extent of Ac.7-75 cents and Ac.6-38 centsrespectively. Even if these lands are construed to be dry lands, since, theirextent has exceeded five acres limit, both the petitioners cannot be construedas landless poor persons. When once the respective petitioners in both thecases cannot be construed as landless poor persons, the lease said to have beenheld by them stood terminated by virtue of the provisions contained under sub-section (1) of Section 82 of the Act. Thus, there is no subsisting lease infavour of the petitioners.
There is no denial or dispute with regard to the fact that the lands in
question belong to the temple. When once a public auction is conducted and the
best bidder thereat has been granted the necessary permission to cultivate the
land, what, in effect and substance, is granted to such an individual is the
right to cultivate the said land, subject to the stipulations or conditions
contained in such a grant by the temple. In effect and in substance, it is a
licence to cultivate the land in question. The distinction, in principle,
between a 'licence' and a 'lease' lies in the fact that in case of licence, the
true owner or the member is always construed as holding possession of the land
and the grantee will not be construed as a trespasser so long as the conditions
and stipulations are honoured and complied with by him. Thus, the right of the
grantee to enter upon the land and put it to agricultural operations is beyond
any question. When once the grant expired by virtue of efflux of time as
stipulated in the grant itself or by its termination brought about in accordance
with the terms of the grant, in such cases also, the grantee ceases to have any
possession over the land in question. He cannot, thereafter, enter upon the
land and deal with it for any purpose including agricultural operations (since,
I had an occasion to deal with a similar issue in JASTI VENKATESWARA RAO v.
SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY, VIJAYAWADA [ALD-2011-6-582]). Hence, all such grantees
of right to cultivate agricultural lands belonging to a temple or endowment or
any institution, cease to have any right to enter upon said lands after the
period of grant expires or the grant gets terminated and any such activity of
theirs will fall foul of law and is liable to be frowned upon. Hence, the
temple authorities are at liberty to grant the necessary right for the further
period in accordance with law. However, it shall be open to them to permit the
previous grantee also to participate in an auction, provided he satisfies the
stipulations or conditions contained therein.
In the instant case, the leases granted earlier in favour of the
petitioners have been terminated by virtue of the operation of the Provisions
contained under sub-section (1) of Section 82 of the Act. The petitioners now
have no manner of any right. They are bound not to carry on any agricultural
operations therein.
Further, the Governor of the Andhra Pradesh framed the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Lease of AgriculturalLands Rules, 2003, exercising the power available to him under sub-section (1)of Section 82 read with Section 153 of the Act and got these Rules notifiedthrough G.O.Ms.No.379, Revenue (Endowments) Department, dated 11-03-2003. Rule 3(1) thereof makes it clear that immediately after the Rulescame into force, if any cultivating tenant claims to be a landless poor person,the Assistant Commissioner, having territorial jurisdiction, shall inquire intoand decide whether the cultivating tenant is a landless poor person or not, asdefined under Section 82 of the Act, after giving reasonable opportunity to thecultivating tenant as well as to the executive authority of the Institutionconcerned. Sub-rule (2) thereof makes it abundantly clear that if thecultivating tenant does not claim to be a landless poor person or if theAssistant Commissioner concerned determined that the cultivating tenant is not alandless poor person, the tenancy will be deemed to have been cancelled witheffect from 28th May 1987 and the cultivating tenant shall be regarded as atenant holding over thereafter. Thus, since, these Rules have been firstpublished in Andhra Pradesh Gazette dated 13-03-2003, the petitioners arerequired to make applications for recognition as landless poor personsimmediately thereafter. Since, the petitioners have not filed any applicationsseeking determination of their status as landless poor persons, the question ofapplication of the Rules itself in their case would not arise. Even otherwise,as already noticed supra, the petitioners, by virtue of the sweep of Section 82of the Act, cannot even be declared as landless poor persons. Hence, there isno way that the petitioners can insist that they shall be permitted to continueto carry on the agricultural operations of the lands belonging to the temple. Aright of seeking permission for any grant cannot lie contrary to therequirements of the Statute itself. I do not find any merit in both these writ petitions and therefore, theyare dismissed at the stage of admission, but however, without costs.
Consequently, the miscellaneous applications, if any in both the writ
petitions, shall also stand dismissed.
Registry is directed to issue a copy of this order to the learned Standing
Counsel for Endowments Department on usual terms.
___________________________
NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J.
Date.01.11.2013.

The Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Chandra Kumar Appeal Suit No.144 of 2012 Dated 9th August, 2012Judgment: The appellant filed this appeal challenging Order, dated27-01-2012, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, refusing to register the suit filed by him on the ground that the same is barred by limitation . The plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance basing on agreement of sale, dated 13-11-2008. As per the terms and conditions of the agreement of sale, the balance amount of Rs.4 lakhs out of the total sale price of Rs.9 lakhs was to be paid within two months from the date of expiry of the limitation of the said agreement of sale. The case of the appellant is that though he had been requesting the respondent to receive the balance sale consideration and register the sale deed in his favour, the respondent did not come forward; that therefore, he got issued a legal notice to the respondent on12-10-2011; that the respondent acknowled…

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable =in VadirajNaggappa Vernekar (deceased by L.Rs) v. Sharad Chand Prabhakar Gogate (supra), it is held as follows: "17. It is now well settled that the power to recall any witness underOrder 18 Rule 17 CPC can be exercised by the Court either on its own motion oron an application filed by any of the parties to the suit, but as indicatedhereinabove, such power is to be invoked not to fill up the lacunae in theevidence of the witness which has already been recorded but to clear anyambiguity that may have arisen during the course of his examination. Of course,if the evidence on re-examination of a witness has a bearing on the ultimatedecision of the suit, it is always within the discretion of the Trial Court topermit recall of such a witness for re-examination-in-chief with permis…

The 1st respondent herein filed O.S.No.101 of 2011 in the Court of III
Additional District Judge, Tirupati against the appellants and respondents 2 to
5 herein, for the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule
property, a hotel at Srikalahasti, Chittoor District. He pleaded that the land
on which the hotel was constructed was owned by the appellants and respondents 2
and 3, and his wife by name Saroja, and all of them gave the property on lease
to M/s. Swarna Restaurant Private Limited, 4th respondent herein, under a
document …